This political science-y piece shows pretty clearly what most political observers outside the Beltway-Mustache-Axis-of-Bipartisan-Fetishism intuitively understand: there simply isn’t a constituency for “centrist” efforts like Americans Elect:
Both Democrats and Republicans are now closer to their own party and farther from the opposition party than at any time in the past four decades. Democrats on average place the Democratic Party exactly where they place themselves while they place the Republican Party very far to the right of where they place themselves. And Republicans on average place the Republican Party exactly where they place themselves while they place the Democratic Party very far to the left of where they place themselves. As a result, very few supporters of either party are likely to be tempted to vote for a centrist third party.
There is one group of voters that might be tempted to vote for a centrist third party: pure independents. These voters, on average, place themselves right in the middle of the two major parties and rather far from either one. But pure independents typically make up less than 10% of the electorate, and they tend to be less interested in politics and less attentive to political campaigns than voters who identify with a political party. There are simply not enough of them and they are too hard to mobilize to have a major impact on the outcome of a presidential election.
One caveat: Sabato’s charts measure perception of where the parties stand ideologically, not where they actually stand, and I’d question how much of a drift leftward there’s actually been on the Democratic side. The influence of the DLC and its fellow travellers has obviously waned, and the Blue Dogs took a kick to the gut in 2010, but that just means that the Dems are less ideologically diverse – not that, say, the Overton Window of permissible range of discussion has actually moved leftward within the party. Dennis Kucinich is as much of an outlier now as he was 10 years ago. The same cannot be said for Jim DeMint.
That said, Sabato’s piece shows the inherent irrelevance of efforts like Americans Elect, which posit a groundswell of support from voters that simply don’t exist. The people channelling David Broder from beyond the grave, who wax nostalgic for the days when pols drank at the same clubs and cut cordial backroom deals, are also pining for a political system in which voters’ wishes were routinely ignored. Those voters are, in 2012, living in two different worlds. They both hate Congress not because it’s gridlocked, but because it isn’t doing their bidding. And in the freakishly unlikely event a third-party presidential bid would be successful, it would still leave us with a Congress that was, if anything, even more gridlocked, for the simple reason that our political system isn’t designed to handle two extremely polarized political camps.
Wishing for a political system that ignores that inconvenient fact is wishing for a top-down, anti-democratic political system that represents almost nobody – the very antithesis of the “nominate whoever you want!” approach Americans Elect claims to embrace. The people backing such appeals to centrism would be better off using their considerable media platforms to explore how our country’s citizens could become less polarized, rather than pretending the polarization doesn’t exist.
Perhaps if the 1% stopped taking ever larger shares of global wealth and resources things would become less polarised…
I cannot believe the intention of Americans Elect is to win. It’s to split the Democratic vote, because that the only way on God’s earth the Republicans could have a shot at winning.
Could someone please show me some sort of legislative platform for this “Americans Elect” group? Their website was, at best, lacking in any substantive agenda beyond “let’s all be nice.” Seems like they would eventially have to come up with some actual policy positions, no?
“Let’s all be nice” is their legislative platform.
Geov,
Good analysis…
As a radical right-winger, honestly, I couldn’t agree more…
Basically, it’s us against you…
In Our World View, you trade freedom for security, and it make us sad…
In Your World View…well, I can’t articulate as well as you can…do we trade anything? Or do we just get revenge on the one percent…I don’t know.
The beauty of the American system is…gridlock! We cann’t get our way, and You can’t get your way…not without an OVERWHELMING majority.
Thank God for the Founding Fathers and the Constitution!
Thank you. I don’t know that it’s so much a question of tradeoffs as priorities and definitions. Where you prioritize freedom, I think many people on the left would say they prioritize fairness, and question how free people can be when they face difficult-to-surmount institutional barriers to success. (Just as you would question the fairness of state interference in free enterprise and high rates of taxation.) People on the right also see institutional barriers to freedom – you cite regulations, for example, where we might cite unequal funding of educational systems or corporate destruction of an environment. We talk past each other a lot using the same words.
I’m somewhat sensitive to this because I grew up in a conservative environment and still have a strong libertarian streak – except that I see large transnational corporations as being as much a threat to liberty as state actors, both directly and indirectly though their disproportionate influence on public policies. I reluctantly conclude that sometimes you need to use the power of one type of large institution to mitigate abuses of another. And I care a lot less about ideological purity of any kind than I do about results. That puts me in every kind of minority, I guess.
Sometimes those differences in priorities and definitions from our two sides can be bridged – and I think many Americans (including the AE people) would love to see that. But our bumper sticker-driven political media rewards ideological purity, and penalizes compromise, as never before. And it’s not going to get any better – nor are any of our serious problems going to get addressed in meaningful and timely ways – unless something changes in our approach and our discourse. The centrist-lovers have identified a symptom of the problem, not the problem, and their “solution” is idiotic. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a serious problem. It is, and I think thoughtful people on both sides recognize it.
I’m also way alarmed at the rise of such rampant anti-intellectualism on the right – not that it doesn’t happen on the left, but it’s hard to point to a left equivalent of the influence of Palin or even Gingrich. it’s hard to have discourse when an opponent isn’t willing to acknowledge facts on the ground and is so driven by emotion. I live in hope that the more thoughtful people can reclaim the Republican brand sometime soon. Our country needs it.
A couple of random thoughts come to mind – a former coworker used to say, “We have the freedom to exploit one another financially” and sometimes the teacher should step in when the kids on the playground are behaving badly.